clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Anaheim Ducks: On the signing of Jared Boll

New, comments

The decision to give Boll a two-year deal was not a good one.

Anaheim Ducks v Columbus Blue Jackets Photo by Kirk Irwin/Getty Images

Anaheim Ducks GM Bob Murray has signed several players over the last few days to try and improve the team’s depth.

For the most part the signings have been harmless - giving a guy like Mason Raymond a two-way deal and hoping for a bounce back year holds little risk - but that wasn’t the case Tuesday night when the Ducks signed Jared Boll.

Boll hasn’t put up more than six points since 2010-11 and was deemed expendable by a team that has made the playoffs twice over the last 16 seasons.

The Ducks not only decided to sign the enforcer but they gave him a two-year deal.

Based on his on-ice results over the last three seasons that is an extremely puzzling choice.

Numbers via stats.hockeyanalysis.com

As you can see the Blue Jackets have been somewhat close to average in terms of shot and goal metrics without Boll. With Boll they have garnered results you’d expect if a random AHL team went up against the Pittsburgh Penguins (not good).

I get that the Ducks want cheap NHLers and Randy Carlyle is a traditional mind when it comes to hockey but giving an enforcer - in particular a bad one when it comes to playing hockey - a two-year deal makes absolutely no sense.

Enforcers are becoming extinct in the NHL. For the most part the few that remain can actually (somewhat) hold their own in limited/sheltered minutes.

Boll has proven he can’t do that and, at 30, it’s unlikely to change.